A federal tax on carbon

The most important point in Allen Best’s article is in his last paragraph, where he says correctly that we are having small, “proxy” fights on the state level, when we should be having a “more sophisticated conversation on the national level” about a federal tax on carbon.

There is growing support for this idea among economists and legislators, and Sens. Barbara Boxer and Bernie Sanders have announced plans to get legislation on the Senate floor by summer. Their bill would tax carbon at the source and return most of the revenue to the public through monthly dividends.

Now we are having a sophisticated conversation!

Elizabeth House, Denver

This letter was published in the May 12 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

OK, I could see a carbon tax as a means to encourage use of other forms of energy, or to offset perceived public costs of global warming amelioration, to the extent that such amelioration can be identified and rationally remedied.
But, taxing those “other guys”, those nasty, fiendish carbon producers, so that the government can then distribute it to “us guys” in the form of a rebate? Please tell me there is more to this bill!
We tax gasoline and other fuels and petroleum products, for example, so that we can create and maintain roads.
We tax sales of goods within a city, so that the city can provide police, fire, public health measures, and other services.
But, according to Ms. House, senators Boxer and Sanders are going to tax “carbon at the source” — whatever that means. Ultimately, I think, stars gone nova are the source of carbon — and just give the money to the rest of us. How nice of the senators! Those dastardly carbon producers will then raise their prices on carbon, and so these “dividends” — what a nice wholesome capitalistic sound that has to American ears. “Hey ma, we’ve finally made it! We’re receiving dividend checks, just like the Mellons and Rockefellers!” — will merely offset what we’re paying extra.
I have a better idea: Either create a tax that has a legitimate public use at least minimally related to the tax source — or kill this bill before it gets out of the drafting office.

ThePyro

I’m with you, pete. When I read “tax carbon at the source”, my mind went “You’re gonna tax the mineral rights owners? That hardly seems fair.” And the idea that energy companies won’t eventually pass the taxes onto us is a bit silly…so we stick it to them (which seems the main thrust of the bill)…and they stick it right back to us. And since a LOT of products are made from carbon – not just fuels – we’ll be paying for it in everything from milk to new cars. The Alaska model, which the bill seems to be based on in an attempt to get bipartisan support, is problematic in that carbon producers accept it in Alaska because it’s a relatively small tax in a relatively moderate production zone. Turn that into a tax applicable to even “just” all US production and it gets into real money.

My problem with the Alaska dividend model (which you reference in another comment) is that it isn’t really applicable in the lower 48 – unlike Alaska, we don’t have vast regions of undeveloped, roadless areas, a consequently low per capita investment in roadway infrastructure and a capitalistic approach to other infrastructure (e.g., many of their airports are privately owned/operated – and a lot are just fields or bodies of water – whereas most of ours are locality-owned facilities). I’d argue, though, that governments will become just as dependent (and overextended) on the income just as individuals will. That’s not an argument against the approach – just that governments would do well to be judicious in estimating the level of income from any such taxes.

peterpi

Alaskans pride themselves on their rugged individualism, their self-reliance, their resistance to government interference — but you don’t EVER want to come between them and their mailbox when it’s “oil company rebate check” day!

peterpi

While I was writing my other comment, I kept thinking of Alaska. Doesn’t Alaska tax oil companies, then distribute the proceeds to the Alaskan population? Don’t the residents of Alaska then come to see these checks as a steady income to be relied on?
Wouldn’t it make more sense to instead use that tax revenue to build roads, highways, improve navigational aids and runways for Alaska’s bush pilots, build or maintain schools or hospitals, bolster law enforcement?
If the people of Alaska want to profit from the oil companies, they can buy stock, like everyone else who wants to benefit from oil companies’ success does.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.

To reach the Denver Post editorial page by phone: 303-954-1331

Recent Comments

peterpi: I think I have this correct: Voters in Jefferson County elected school board members that the superintendent...

peterpi: Sounds good to me. For future employees. I believe police and fire dept. brass have also been known to get...